The Church of New Atheism

Comments

One response to “The Church of New Atheism”

1. 

   Boanerges

   December 23, 2015

   , I think it is an ideal book for Christian apologists. It’s unuusal because non-theists usually don’t get into the logical arguments at any length relying more on evidence. But apologetics seems to rely completely on logic.Unfortunately, because they are rarely challenged at length on this logic it has become rather sloppy (I referred to Craig’s arguments as an example and a lot of apologists repeat those arguments).So here we have the unuusal (Berg thinks unique) case of an atheist who develops his logical arguments at length (in my opinion to a fault, as he appears to have an incorrect understanding of the value of science). So, I woud think it encumbent on the conscientiousness apologists to actually read the book before commenting so that they can engage properly with these arguments.I have glanced briefly at your refutations and can tell you that you wouldn’t have included many of them if you had read the book. This is because many, if not most, of your arguments are actually engaged with by the author in the book. He actually has for each chapter a list of arguments against his propositions (some of which you used)- which he then deals with one by one. One may not be convinced but there is no doubt the author is thorough and you need to be aware of his full argument before dealing with it.You appear to have taken the book seriously enough to write several pages of refutations. Unfortunately, for your case, they appear to be mostly not appropriate because they have either been dealt with in the book, or are irrelevant (Several of your refutation are based on misunderstandings of Berg’s points inevitable as you didn’t actually read his full arguments).I can appreciate that you have an emotional response to seeing the words atheism and logical in the same sentence. But may I suggest that the more appropriate response is not to retaliate by replacing logical with illogical, or by writing a several page rejection based on a brief summary at the web site. To me the appropriate response is to get the book, read it, consider the arguments and then respond to them with your own logic. It won’t hurt you, you might enjoy it. And you might find that you can debate the issues intelligently, maybe even find ways to prove Berg logically faulty.I actually think it’s very unfair that I felt obliged to read the book because I was reviewing it. It’s not the sort of book I would normally read without having that responsibility. It’s really a book which is more suitable for the Christian apologist reader. But you get to do your review without putting in the work!Personally, I would like to Christian apologists engage seriously with Berg’s logic. Hopefully, some will actually read the book before launching into emotional criticism. Ken

   Reply